1880.] 



A. F. E. Hoernle — A Collection of Hindi Moots. 



39 



dehli seemed to be an unique one. So far as I know, no parallel case o£ such, 

 a process o£ creation of a new root from the future base has hitherto been 

 shown to exist. Quite latel}'', however, in my reading of Chand's Prithi- 

 raja Easau, preparatory to my edition of it in the Bibliotheca Indica,* 

 I liave come across two other striking instances of that jjrocess, so that 

 I now incline to consider Childers' theory to be fully proved. For this 

 reason, I have nowf inserted it in the list of laws of formation of roots, 

 above enumerated. Those two instances are the roots nalcJcTi or nanlch 

 "destroy" or "throw away" and IcraJchli "draw" or "pull." The former 

 occurs, e. y., in the following verses : 



•^sf^R fT^ft II (or •ST'^t' ) 27, 88. 



i. e. " impatiently he throws away his rosary with his hand" ; again 



"^^J -^XK '^'^i f^^^sfw ^15^ II 27, 84. 

 i. e. " the chiefs of the cavalry he fearlessly destroyed." 

 The root Icralclcli occurs in the following lines : 



f^'^TT ^wi iq-^t -Sf^ f^■§T 1 



i. e. " unblushingly searching for a partner, Sachi (wife of Indra) espied 

 him, and, like as the fish her young, so she drew him to herself." 



Now the origin of these two curious roots finds a very easy explana- 

 tion, by applying to them Childers' theory. The future of the root nas 

 " perish" is in Sanskrit nanlcsliyati, which would be Pr. nanlclidi or 

 wfl/c/i/'/iOT, whence in Hindi nnnlcliai or nahjchai with meaning of the present. 

 It is to be noted, that in Hindi the meaning of the root has become tran-. 

 sitive (by the 5th law). Similarly the Sanskrit future of the root 

 Icrisli " draw" is IcraTcsliyati, Apabhramsa Pr. hralchlidi, whence in Hindi, 

 with meaning of present tense, Icralclchai. It shoiild be observed, that the 

 rhyme in the above lines would require hriJcliycm or a root Jcrilch. This 

 may serve to illustrate the process by which assimilations of radical forms 

 are brought about in the vernaculars. 



But further there is a another well-known Hindi root, the origin of 

 which, hitherto very puzzling, now finds an easy solution and thus serves 

 as an additional confii'mation of Childers' theory. This is the root Icliecli or 

 hliaich or Jchench (^'%) or hhaincli (^'%) "draw." The Sanskrit conjunct 

 Icsli may change in Prakrit to Iclcli or cUchh ; thus the Skr. root preJcsli " see" 

 becomes pelcJcli or pechclili in Prakrit ; the Sanskrit future base draJcsliya 



* Three fasciculi of this Epic have been puhlished, one of the 1st Vol. hy 

 Mr. Beames, and. two of the 2nd Vol. by myself; a fourth fasciculus (3rd of "Vol. 

 II) as well as an annotated English translation of the 1st fasc. of Vol. II ■wiU appear 

 in the course of this year. 



t It is not in the list given in my Comparative Grammar, pp. ICl — 171. 



